Skype Classes: Teachers and Students’ Perceptions on Synchronous Online Classes in Relation to...

International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2015; 1 (3): 36-45

Published online September 15, 2015 (http://www.ijlal.ir)

ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)

© 2015 Khate Sefid Press

36

SkypeTM

Classes: Teachers and Students’

Perceptions on Synchronous Online Classes in

Relation to Face-to-face Teaching and

Learning

Nayara Nunes Salbego Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

Email: [email protected]

Celso Henrique Soufen Tumolo Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

Email: [email protected]

Abstract — The possibilities for language learning are

expanding with the advent of the Internet, which allows for

online classes. This study investigates teachers` and

students` perceptions regarding synchronous SkypeTM

classes. Learning languages through webconferencing tools

entail differences, similarities, advantages and

disadvantages when compared to face-to-face classes.

Aspects of this learning ought to be tracked, but most

importantly, learners and teachers involved in the learning

processes should be taken into consideration as well. In

regard to that, participants answered a questionnaire about

their experiences with online classes, in relation to face-to-

face learning environments. Results brought to light

characteristics, advantages and disadvantages that may be

taken into consideration when designing online classes

through webconferencing tools. Overall, participants

perceive webconferencing as potential for language

learning, with emphasis on the speaking and listening skills.

The results also enlighten pedagogy and future research in

the area.

Index Terms— SkypeTM classes, Synchronous online classes,

Language learning, Teachers’ and students’ perceptions

I. INTRODUCTION

Notably, the opportunities for language learners to

interact in the foreign language (L2) with other speakers

have expanded beyond what could have been possible

prior to the advent of the Internet, which also impacts

language classes.

A specific mode of language learning has been gaining

prominence: SkypeTM

classes. Learning language through

SkypeTM

can benefit learners who do not have access to

classes in formal settings due to various reasons, such as

time constraints, commuting difficulties, busy schedules,

and so forth. Online language classes through SkypeTM

entail an opportunity for learners to develop language

skills. The software has gained popularity since its launch

in 2003 and many online schools have been using

SkypeTM

as a teaching tool. Here are some examples:

Easy Español (www.easyespanol.org); Native English

Speaker (nativeenglishteacher.net); Skype English School

(skype-englishschool.com).

There has been a number of investigations concerned

about the use of different conferencing tools (e.g.

SkypeTM

, BlackboardTM

, FlashmeetingTM

, NetmeetingTM

)

for the purpose of language learning (e.g. Hampel &

Stickler, 2012; Guo, 2013; Verjano, 2013). However

studies specifically focusing on perceptions of teachers

and students regarding characteristics of online modes of

learning, compared to face-to-face (f2f) classes, have not

been found so far. It is essential to understand and reflect

upon participants‘ views in any learning context.

Therefore, this study aims to investigate similarities,

differences, advantages and disadvantages regarding the

two modes of teaching and learning, according to

teachers‘ and students‘ perceptions.

This investigation may shed light on how the two

modes of teaching and learning are viewed from two

different perceptions: students‘ and teachers‘, who have

had experience with both SkypeTM

and f2f classes.

Participants answered a questionnaire regarding their

experience with both modes of learning. Their answers

were compared, and the outstanding findings are

presented in this paper.

Received March 31, 2015; Accepted July 16, 2015.






37

II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

A. Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and

Language Learning

Computer-mediated Communication (CMC) refers to

‗any real-time or delayed communicative transaction that

occurs through the use of tools taking advantage of

networked technology capabilities‘ (Lin, 2014, p. 123). It

has had a relevant impact on the way people live, work,

and learn, since it allows simultaneous communication

with people all around the world at little cost, and offers

new opportunities for language learning and teaching.

CMC can be asynchronous, i.e. in the form of writing e-

mails, or posting responses to a discussion forum; or it

can be synchronous, such as conversations held in

chatrooms (Xu, 2005).

Studies have found that CMC for language learning

qualitatively changes communication because students

are more willing to engage in online conversations (Kern,

1995; Hampel & Stickler, 2012; Verjano, 2013). Verjano

(2013), for instance, mentions that students in online

environments were exposed to increased and more varied

input from other classmates when engaged in CMC.

Some years ago, Kern (1995) found out that, in language

learning, CMC activities may reduce anxiety and enhance

motivation, when compared to f2f interaction.

There has been a shift in teaching from f2f classes

towards using webconferencing applications (Stockwell,

2007). The applications (e.g. ElluminateTM

,

FlashMeetingTM

, and SkypeTM

) serve as tools for online

interaction combining different modes of

communication1, such as body language, spoken and

written language, visual and graphic systems, among

others, and have been increasingly used for the purposes

of teaching and learning languages.

Research on two different modes of communication -

text and audio – through webconferencing for language

learning includes Jepson‘s (2005), which analyzed the

patterns of moves in synchronous non-native speaker text

chat rooms in comparison to voice chat rooms. Jepson

observed repair moves that substantiate the online

interaction in both modes and found that online classes

are potential ways of language development.

Other studies about computer mediated speaking

environments have shown positive influence of CMC for

teaching and learning languages (Heins, Duensing,

Stickler, Batstone, 2007; Stickler, Batstone, Duensing,

Heins, 2007). Specifically, Heins et al (2007) found a

higher ratio of L2 input/output by students, a prevalence

of highly structured L2 input and output, greater

emphasis on classroom management, and fewer student-

student exchanges outside allocated tasks, while Stickler

et al (2007) found that online classes require more

1 Jewitt (2004) has defined modes of communication as ―organized,

regular means of representation and communication‖ (p. 184).

classroom management. Consequently, more positive

language development can be a result from online

classes.

Following the same line, Blake (2005) reports on the

benefits of using an application that combines voice and

text chat for negotiating meaning, and highlights the

socio-affective benefits for distance learning contexts.

Kenning (2010) looks at the different impacts of using

voice and text chat, identifying a number of positive

factors in online classes, such as increasing learner

participation, lessening teacher dominance, and more

production of output by learners.

More recently, Hampel and Stickler (2012) illustrated

how an online videoconferencing environment can be

used in language teaching, and more specifically, how

teachers and students adapt to the online environment and

how new patterns of communication emerge in the

process. The authors‘ findings showed categories of

language use to interact in class, such as social

conversations, management of technology, negotiation of

meaning related to the task, off-task conversations and

teacher feedback. These categories can be found in f2f

classes as well, but they differ in some aspects presented

in the study (Hampel & Stickler, 2012), for example,

students using the chat box to parallel conversations in

order to have a consensus on their answers, , in relation to

activities proposed.

It is important to note that, despite the proliferation of

literature on online learning, there is a need for further

research dedicated to examining how language learning

takes place through CMC tools, especially comparing to

f2f classes. Perceptions of users enlighten pedagogy and

might be analyzed in order to better design and plan

synchronous online classes.

B. Skype TM

: CMC Tools for Synchronous Language

Learning

There have been a growing number of studies about the

use of SkypeTM

, or other similar webconferencing tools

(e.g. FlashmeetingTM

, NetmeetingTM

) for blended learning

(e.g. Hampel & Stickler, 2012; Guo, 2013; Verjano,

2013). However, few studies comparing characteristics,

advantages and disadvantages between online and f2f

classes have been found (e.g. Kirtman, 2009; Ni, 2013),

and no studies analyzing participants perceptions on the

use of such tools for language learning have been

identified so far.

Warschauer (1996), almost twenty years ago, analyzed

electronic and f2f discussions. The author found that

computer-mediated communication resulted in more

equal participation among students. That adds up to the

advantages of using CMC tools for language

development. However, Blake (2005) clarifies that ―only

a carefully prepared curriculum can make learning

languages at a distance a format palatable for students

and the profession at large‖ (p. 509).





38

Recent research in Spain and Australia, for instance,

have demonstrated the benefits of having online group

sessions with students as a way of integrating technology

into the regular course plan for f2f classrooms (Guo,

2013; Verjano, 2013). Guo (2013) found that the

development of activities through a webconferencing tool

creates real communicative needs for students to speak in

the target language. On similar lines, Verjano (2013)

concluded that a higher number of students interacted in

the online synchronous tool, in comparison to the f2f

classroom.

Despite the time lapse, it is relevant to point out that

Kern (1995) had already showed that blending classroom

practices through f2f and online activities offered

restructured classroom dynamics and created a new

context for social use of language. The author

investigated a group of French students at the University

of California at Berkeley and the results showed that one

group of students produced 88% of the total number of

sentences online, while in their f2f discussions they

produced only 37%. The author also showed that the

online interaction brought up more discourse functions,

including more greetings, assertions, and questions,

produced by the students. This study was replicated in

2015 and similar results were found (Jones, Murphy,

Holland, 2015), especially in what regards more

sophisticated conversation in the chatroom setting.

In sum, research has been showing the benefits of

webconferencing tools, such as SkypeTM

, for language

learning in classes in which students have f2f interaction

and some online activities. However, there is still a need

to systematically understand online classes. In addition, it

is relevant to examine how teachers and students feel

about teaching and learning in a synchronous online

environment. In this sense, this study aims at

investigating and discussing students‘ and teachers‘

perceptions on how online classes may compare to or

differ from f2f classes.

III. METHOD

This is a qualitative research in which 10 participants

answered an online questionnaire regarding their

perceptions on SkypeTM

online voice call classes (without

video) compared to f2f in-class courses. Participants were

teachers and students who had experience with SkypeTM

and f2f classes.

It can be considered a case study since it analyses a

selected group of people whose boundary was the

experience with SkypeTM

classes (Dörnyei, 2007). It can

also be considered an exploratory study since it is

innovative in terms of perceptions of students and

teachers in relation to one-to-one synchronous online

classes.

This section describes in more detail the instruments

and the participants of this study.

A. Instruments

The questionnaire presented four open-ended questions

and one question in which participants were asked to

choose between three alternatives (equal, advantage,

disadvantage) to compare the development of the four

skills in the two modes of learning: webconferencing

through SkypeTM

and f2f language classes. In all the

questions, participants were allowed space to explain,

comment and/or provide examples to their answers.

The questionnaire applied to students was similar to the

one applied to teachers. The only difference was the

substitution of the word ‗learning‘ for ‗teaching‘ in the

questionnaire for teachers. The questionnaires are

available on a host website2.

The questions inquired participants about their

perceptions regarding SkypeTM

language classes,

focusing their views on developing the four skills –

reading, writing, listening and speaking – through the

CMC tool SkypeTM

. Participants could answer in English

or in Portuguese3.

The instruments were made available online and

participants had 3 months to participate. They were

invited by e-mail. Around 4 e-mails were sent as a

reminder for interested participants to answer the

questionnaire.

B. Participants

Participants4 were divided into two groups: (a) students

who have had at least three months of experience with

SkypeTM

classes; and (b) teachers who have had a

sustained experience with SkypeTM

classes. All the

participants had experience with f2f in-class courses, thus

they were able to establish comparisons and provide their

informed perceptions regarding both modes of teaching

and learning.

Teachers participating in this study were teaching

different languages. Two of them were teaching Spanish

as a foreign language in Argentina to American students

in the United States. They were working for an online

private language school that adopted SkypeTM

as a

platform for the classes – Easy Español

(www.easyespanol.org). Both Spanish teachers had

taught f2f classes in Argentina as well. The third teacher

was an American working with Brazilian students who

taught English as a foreign language in Brazil. This

teacher also worked in a private language school; he had

online and f2f classes.

2 Questionnaire for teachers: https://pt.surveymonkey.com/s/YQJCFLS

Questionnaire for students: https://pt.surveymonkey.com/s/K6CJVS5 3 Answers in Portuguese were translated into English by the authors of this article. 4 All participants are addressed as ‗he‘ since gender was not accounted for in this investigation.

https://pt.surveymonkey.com/s/YQJCFLS

https://pt.surveymonkey.com/s/K6CJVS5





39

In what concerns time of experience, one of the

Spanish teachers had 1 year and a half of experience, the

second Spanish teacher had about 6 years of experience

and the American teacher had 1 year of experience with

SkypeTM

classes.

The students who answered the questionnaire are

originally from Brazil; English is a foreign language for

them. All of the students have had f2f English classes as

well, not necessarily with the same teacher. They have

had different experiences in terms of time, ranging from 3

months to 3 years of SkypeTM

classes.

Some of the participant students (n=3) have a high-

intermediate level of English; the other participants (n=4)

have a low-intermediate level. The high level of English

is attributed to the time they have been studying English

in general (4 to 6 years), not only to the time they have

been having SkypeTM

classes. It is relevant to notice that

there were no Spanish students participating in this

research, only English students, different from the

participant teachers. Also participant students were

having one-to-one English classes; thus, their perceptions

could have been different if they were having group

classes.

Participants are referred to as SS+number, which

stands for SkypeTM

Students, and ST+number, for

SkypeTM

Teachers. They are referred to as males,

although females also participated in the study.

The authors of this study do recognize that the number

of participants was small. Out of 30 participants invited

(10 teachers; 20 students), only 10 agreed to participate

(3 teachers; 7 students). Participants who declined

claimed lack of time. Despite all that, the findings can

still be representative if related to other similar contexts

of investigation.

IV. ANALYSES AND DISCUSSIONS

A. SkypeTM

Classes Students

A total of 7 students who have been studying on

SkypeTM

for at least three months up to 3 years answered

the questionnaire. They are referred to as SS+number,

which stands for SkypeTM

Student. They pointed out

similarities and differences, advantages and

disadvantages of this mode of classes, according to their

perceptions and also regarding their experiences in f2f

contexts.

In general terms, Skype TM

classes seem to raise

positive perspectives in relation to learning. All the

participant students see their experiences on SkypeTM

classes as positive and they stated that it is possible to

develop the four skills in English through this mode of

interaction. SS2 and SS6 comment:

―I think I develop more the speakings and the

listenings, because this is our focus everytime‖. (SS2)

―The combination of language skills during classes and

also in activities extra classes are very calm and

natural‖.5 (SS6)

While SS6 thinks it is easy to work on all the four

skills on SkypeTM

classes, SS2 considers that speaking

and listening are more emphasized. In addition to that,

SS1, SS3, and SS7 assured that it is necessary more

attention to understand and establish communication with

the teacher. Since the SkypeTM

class consists of a voice

call, all students claimed that the skills of speaking and

listening are in advantage when compared to f2f contexts.

―I believe that the skills that are more explored in this

teaching mode are speaking and listening‖.6 (SS2)

―It [SkypeTM

classes] makes students to use correct

expressions so that the teachers understand the meaning

of the dialogue‖.7 (SS5)

Participants are in agreement that speaking and

listening are further worked on on SkypeTM

classes.

Participants SS2, SS4, SS5, and SS6 (four participants

out of seven) stated that they feel more comfortable to

practice speaking, consequently further developing their

vocabulary and conversation skills.

―I particularly feel more comfortable to practice my

‘speaking’ than in ‘face to face’ classes, which I see as

an advantage because I develop more my vocabulary and

speaking‖.8 (SS2)

SS2 emphasized the comfortable feeling of speaking on

SkypeTM

. Warschauer (1996) and Ni (2013), despite the

time lapse, also found evidence that interaction in an

online environment is less intimidating between

individuals and also has less pressure on students than

does interaction in f2f settings.

In fact, students generally pointed out more advantages

than disadvantages regarding online classes. Similar

results were found by Hampel and Stickler (2012), Guo

(2013), Verjano (2013), Heins et al (2007), Stickler et al

(2007), Jepson (2005), among others, who identified

5 Authors‘ translation for: ―É muito tranquilo e natural essa combinação de habilidades linguísticas durante as aulas e também em atividades

extra classe‖. 6 Authors‘ translation for: ―Acredito que as habilidades mais exploradas e desenvolvidas com esse método de ensino sejam o speaking e

listening‖. 7 Authors‘ translation for: ―Força ao aluno utilizar expressões corretas

para que o professor entenda o significado do diálogo. não pode

desenhar ou valor com expressões. Unicamente utilizando a fala‖. 8 Authors‘ translation for: ―Eu particulamente me sinto mais a vontade

para treinar meu "speaking" do que em aulas 'face-to-face', o que vejo como uma grande vantagem, pois assim desenvolvo mais meu

vocabulário e prática da fala‖.





40

positive results from language classes through CMC

webconferencing tools.

Nonetheless, disadvantages were also shown. Among

them, there were 3 participants (SS2, SS3, SS7) who

raised the issue of impossibility of interpreting facial

expressions or reading lips; 2 participants (SS1, SS4)

highlighted the possibility of facing technical problems;

and 1 participant (SS5) stated that the lack of personal

contact due to the online interaction can be a

disadvantage as well.

The final question asked participants about their

perceptions regarding the four skills separately – reading,

writing, speaking and listening. They were required to

state if the development of each skills was in advantage,

disadvantage or equal, if compared to f2f contexts: On

SkypeTM

classes, the skill (reading, writing, speaking and

listening) is in advantage, disadvantage or is equal, if

compared to face-to-face classes?. There was a table

listing all the four skills and the three options for

participants to select (advantage, disadvantage or equal);

there was also space for comments. For none of the skills,

the types of activities were defined. Participants were

asked in general about reading, writing, speaking and

listening activities in online and f2f modes of learning.

Most of the participants claimed that writing and

reading are equal, and all participants stated that speaking

and listening are in advantage. Participants SS1 and SS7

considered that writing is in disadvantage, and participant

SS1 thinks that reading is in disadvantage. Speaking and

listening are always seen as in advantage by the

respondents. Table 1 shows their answers to the final

question:

TABLE 1. STUDENTS‘ ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION ―ON

SKYPETM CLASSES, THE FOUR SKILLS (READING, WRITING, LISTENING AND SPEAKING) ARE IN ADVANTAGE (A),

DISADVANTAGE (D)OR ARE EQUAL(E), IF COMPARED TO

FACE-TO-FACE CLASSES?‖

SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 SS6 SS7

Reading D E E E E E E

Writing D E E A E E D

Speaking A A A A A A A Listening A A A A A A A

A = Advantage; D = Disadvantage; E = Equal

All the participants highlighted that speaking and

listening are in advantage when compared to f2f classes.

In the space for comments, participants stated that it is

highly necessary to pay more attention while listening to

the teacher on SkypeTM

classes. This may happen because

students have no visual contexts providing clues for

comprehension, since they use only voice calls instead of

video calls. Participant students also stated that they need

to talk more to make sure they understand instructions

and make themselves understandable.

I think listening is better at skype, because it's a phone

call, and you need to speak and listening more. And as

you can't be distracted with movements of others things,

you only look at your computer, I think you can focus

more in the conversation than face to face classes (in face

to face you can be distracted with the world out of the

window, with the movements outside school, with cell

phones, with another students...). Then, at skype you need

to pay attention all the time in the conversation. (SS1)

―In my opinion, it seems that students speak and listen

more on Skype classes, which is important for the ones

who want to practice their capacity to listen and

understand English and it requires concentration all the

time to know how to talk to the teacher‖.9 (SS2)

―I need to pronounce better to promote comprehension.

(...) I need to concentrate better to listen since I do not

have the facial expression and gesture resources‖.10

(SS7)

Participants SS1, SS2, and SS7 emphasized the need

for more concentration on both speaking and listening on

SkypeTM

classes. This is in accordance with Santos

(2012), who investigated the use of SkypeTM

for

developing the four skills in English, and found that

students highlighted listening and speaking as having a

considerable advantage in this mode of interaction.

From the question Do you believe that it is possible to

develop the four skills (reading, writing, speaking and

listening) on SkypeTM

language classes? Explain, please,

it was possible to interpret that all participant students see

the development of the four skills in English through

SkypeTM

classes as possible. Although some of them

believe that writing and reading may be in disadvantage,

in this question all participants claimed to believe that the

development the four skills in online classes is feasible.

Participant SS2 mentioned that, even in f2f classes,

writing is in disadvantage if compared to the other skills.

The participant stated that ―this skill is a little forgotten‖.

Thus, if the questionnaire was about f2f classes, some of

the participants may also have mentioned that reading

and writing were less worked on, if compared to the other

skills.

It is necessary for SkypeTM

teachers to call students‘

attention to the writing and reading skills. On SkypeTM

classes, teachers and students use the chat box tool to

register new vocabulary, to check spelling, to work on

pronunciation along with spelling, etc. Therefore, writing

can be certainly worked on through the use of the chat

box. Other writing exercises may be provided, but as SS4

suggested, writing and reading are required more as

homework because of the amount of time they demand,

even in f2f classes.

Concluding, the perceptions of students who have

experience with SkypeTM

classes were positive in terms

9 Authors‘ translation for: ―Na minha opinião, parece que em aulas via Skype fala-se e se ouve-se mais, o que é importante para quem deseja

treinar sua capacidade de ouvir e entender inglês e exige concentração o

tempo todo para saber dialogar com o professor‖. 10 Authors‘ translation for: ―Preciso pronunciar melhor para promover

compreensão. (...) Preciso me concentrar melhor para escutar, já que não tenho o recurso de expressão facial e gestos‖.





41

of the development of the four skills in English.

Therefore, participant students‘ perceptions point to the

potential of learning languages through SkypeTM

as a

CMC webconferencing tool.

B. Skype TM

Classes Teachers

Three teachers who had at least 1 year of experience

teaching on SkypeTM

participated in this study. They

answered a questionnaire with 5 questions inquiring their

perceptions on language classes on SkypeTM

. They are

referred to as ST+number, which stands for SkypeTM

Teacher. Regarding their experiences, ST1 taught English

for 1 year; ST2 taught Spanish for 1 year and a half; and

ST3 taught Spanish for 6 years on SkypeTM

.

Participants were asked to describe the language

learning and teaching processes on SkypeTM

, and to point

out similarities and differences between teaching on

SkypeTM

and teaching f2f classes. They raised important

topics, pointing out advantages and disadvantages they

see through their experiences.

Some of their answers showed that SkypeTM

classes

can resemble f2f classes. ST1, for example, stated that

you can either use online tools or a book, as teachers

would do in f2f classes. According to this participant, that

consists in an advantage for online classes, being that it

does not differ much from f2f classes. Hampel and

Stickler (2012) also found that online classes present a

variety of similarities to f2f contexts of language

learning, such as the discourse functions of social

conversations, negotiation of meaning, and off-task

conversations.

ST2 pointed out that students see this type of class as

effective.

―[…] as my students told me, they learn as much as in

their face to face private classes, so they see no

difference in the learning process. Skype is a great way to

develop the student´s speaking skills, whereas face to

face can focus on writing and reading skills and take

advantage of that‖. (ST2)

It is interesting to notice that writing and reading are

seen as in disadvantage in f2f classes, while speaking and

listening are in advantage on SkypeTM

classes. This

corresponds to perceptions of students discussed in the

previous section. Therefore, students and teachers with

experience on both SkypeTM

and f2f classes agree that

speaking and listening are in advantage on SkypeTM

classes.

ST3 believes that holding students‘ attention on

SkypeTM

classes may be challenging. On the other hand,

students stated that they have to pay much more attention

on SkypeTM

classes, in order to be able to follow

instructions and interact with the teacher. ST3 stated that

students get easily distracted:

―For me, the main difference has been holding the

student focus in the class: using Skype sometimes classes

get interrupted by other calls or messages or students get

distracted by other things happening on their screens that

I'm not able to see‖. (ST3)

A possible explanation is that each student has a

different personality; some of them may get distracted the

same way they do in f2f classes. Thus, that would not

constitute a characteristic solely of online classes. In

regard to that, ST3 stated that teachers need a well-

structured lesson plan to make sure students profit from

the class. That, in fact, may hold students attention. As

Blake (2005) pointed out, the organization and content of

the lesson plan is what will determine the effectiveness of

the class. In regard to that, ST3 mentioned:

―In addition, I find that you need to be more

resourceful and organized as a teacher in planning your

classes to make the most of the Skype tools (instant

messages, share screen, files exchange) to ensure that

your student gets a full learning experience‖. (ST3)

Teachers do need to be very prepared to handle

unforeseen events, especially dealing with technology.

On top of that, a well-structured lesson plan ensures that

students work hard on all the skills (Blake, 2005), besides

keeping learners busy with their learning while in class,

either in online or f2f contexts.

Among the advantages mentioned by the teachers, ST1

mentioned access. It is easier for learners to access their

computers and learn from anywhere, instead of

commuting. The other two participants ST2 and ST3 also

mentioned that SkypeTM

shortens distances, and they

emphasized that it is a great communication tool.

―Skype allows us to communicate in real time and

share our knowledge together, improving our speaking

and listening skills‖. (ST2)

―Skype's communication tools (audio, video, instant

messages) are key to be able to have a good, efficient

experience. I've tried similar programs, but none of them

allowed the same quality of interaction between teacher

and student‖. (ST3)

As for the disadvantages, pronunciation practice may

be seen as challenging. According to ST1,

miscommunication due to poor sound quality can hinder

students‘ ability to learn. Additionally, ST2 states that

SkypeTM

is not enough on its own. To share homework,

for example, you may need another platform. In fact, it is

possible to share files (images, sound, pdf, docs, etc.)

through SkypeTM

, so it is not clear what exactly was

meant by other platforms.

Participant teachers also answered a question regarding

their beliefs in relation to the development of the four

skills: Do you believe that it is possible to develop the

four skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening) on

SkypeTM

language classes? Explain, please. Similarly to





42

the participant students, teachers‘ perceptions indicated

that all of them see it as possible. ST1 and ST2 argued

that speaking and listening are more worked on through

SkypeTM

classes, while reading and writing are less

developed.

―Yes, I do agree that you can learn and develop of the

4 skills on Skype. Speaking and listening through Skype

force the students to challenge themselves because they

will hear a foreign language through a machine and is

therefore not 100% clear as it is face-to-face. This forces

them to listen harder to what the teacher is saying. If you

assign reading and writing assignments I believe that

they can develop those skills as well. For example, if you

send a student an article to read and then they write a

summary of the article this would be similar to what you

would assign a student in a face to face class‖. (ST1)

―Skype is useful to develop a student´s speaking skills

just like what you can do in your face to face classes. But

it´s what Skype better does: be a channel of

communication. Thus, we can perfectly use Skype to

develop our speaking skills in the comfort of our home‖.

(ST2)

Through teachers‘ answers, one can see that reading

and writing are developed, but since SkypeTM

is more of a

conversation software, as ST2 stated, it is expected that

listening and speaking are further developed. Participant

students agreed with the teachers‘ perceptions in regard

to that.

However, ST3 claimed that it is absolutely possible to

develop the four skills through SkypeTM

. This participant

did not differentiate the four skills, but emphasized that

the chat conversation is recorded in the software and can

be used by students and teachers to review what was

covered in class.

―Skype is a great communication tool and as such

allows for language input and feedback through audio,

video, and chat screen. It also allows for the sharing of

learning resources (audio files, exercises) and records

the conversation chat history, so students (and teachers)

can review what was covered in previous classes to

compliment their notes‖. (ST3)

The chat conversation may foster reading and writing.

While students are reading words posted by teachers,

they are working on their spelling and vocabulary.

Besides that, students also may write words and

sentences; consequently, writing can be a skill developed

on SkypeTM

classes. In this case, what matters will be the

lesson plan and not the means of communication for

learning a language, as Blake (2005) has emphasized.

In relation to the question On SkypeTM

classes, the skill

is in advantage, disadvantage or is equal, if compared to

face-to-face classes?, teachers diverged regarding a

comparison between the development of the four skills

through SkypeTM

and f2f classes, while most students

agreed on this question. Participants had three options to

choose from – equal, advantage, disadvantage – besides a

comment box. Table 2 shows their answers.

TABLE 2 TEACHERS‘ ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION ―ON

SKYPETM CLASSES, THE FOUR SKILLS (READING, WRITING,

LISTENING AND SPEAKING) ARE IN ADVANTAGE (A),

DISADVANTAGE (D)OR ARE EQUAL(E), IF COMPARED TO FACE-TO-FACE CLASSES?‖

ST1 ST2 ST3

Reading Equal Disadvantage Advantage Writing Equal Disadvantage Disadvantage

Speaking Disadvantage Equal Advantage

Listening Disadvantage Equal Advantage

As shown in Table 2, participant ST1 considers that

reading and writing are equal in both modes of teaching

and learning. ST1 claimed that it really depends on the

student‘s necessities to be assigned reading and writing

activities and they would work in f2f classes as well. For

ST2, these skills are in disadvantage because SkypeTM

is

a means of communication and not a platform for reading

and writing.

―Skype only serves as a communicator purpose.

Students and teachers can discuss the solutions of a

reading exercise, but the reading is done by the student

from another platform or website. So, Skype provides an

advantage to communicate the solutions to the reading

exercise but not for the reading itself‖. (ST2)

―Here, it is the same as in the reading skill. Writing

exercises can be perfectly done by the student as

homework, but then share the solutions via Skype while

communicating with the teacher. So, again, I think Skype

only serves as the channel of communication for both

members of the class‖. (ST2)

According to ST2, in case teachers plan to work with

reading and writing, they will need another platform.

However, it is possible to read and write using the

SkypeTM

software. There is a chat box in which teachers

can post written text, images, links, etc. In the same way,

students can write and teachers can check learners‘

production. Written feedback can also be provided in the

SkypeTM

chat box.

For ST3, reading is in advantage on SkypeTM

classes

because students feel more comfortable to sound out

words and make mistakes when reading out loud and

trying to comprehend texts and participant students

agreed on that. However, writing is in disadvantage

because external tools are usually necessary to work on

this skill.

―I've found that for many students (especially

beginners) having Skype as a buffer between them and

their teacher gives them a sense of security and

confidence. This allows them to feel less self-conscious

when making mistakes, sounding out the words, or when

trying to process and comprehend the texts‖. (ST3)





43

―Although writing can be developed just fine though

Skype, sometimes the chat screen is rather limited and

external tools (such as Word) are required‖. (ST3)

In f2f classes, external resources to the classroom are

always used as a means of developing different activities.

If students are required to write an essay, for example,

certainly they will need either paper and pen or a word

processor software to record their textual production.

Consequently, the use of external resources is part of both

f2f and online classes.

Answers were divergent as well considering speaking

and listening. ST1 argued that pronunciation is difficult

to be worked on through SkypeTM

. This participant

compared it to a phone call in which sometimes it is

impossible to understand all the words accurately. Yet, in

f2f classes, misunderstandings due to mispronunciation

also happen. In addition, some students have difficulties

producing certain sounds and it is probably not the fact

that there is a teacher in front of him/her to sound words

out that learners will produce the correct pronunciation.

While ST2 stated that speaking and listening are

equally developed on SkypeTM

and f2f classes, ST3

believes these skills are in advantage on SkypeTM

classes.

Similarly to what participant students stated, ST3 claimed

that students feel more relaxed to try out what they are

learning.

―Skype's great communication tools make students feel

as if they are having a f2f classes with the added

comfort and ease that comes from having classes in their

own home or offices, and having Skype as a buffer -

albeit a rather invisible one. These aspects make the

Skype learning experience fun and relaxed which allows

students to forget about their insecurities and inhibitions

and speak freely‖. (ST3)

As for listening, students can profit from wearing

headsets, so that they understand better the teacher, as

claimed ST3.

―Skype's strong communication tools allow for a great

exchange of language input and feedback. Wearing

headsets in class and focusing on the language samples

being provided by the teacher though conversation or

audio files makes for a faster development of one of the

skills with which students struggle the most‖. (ST3)

For ST3, listening is in advantage on SkypeTM

classes

because it allows a great deal of language input, as

Jepson found in his investigation back in 2005. SkypeTM

classes may be indicated for students who have

difficulties listening because they can listen directly to

the teacher by using a headphone.

Putting together all the participant teachers‘ and

students‘ answers, one can notice that more advantages (n

= 18) were pointed out than disadvantages (n = 8).

Moreover, the number of ‗equals‘ (n = 14) selected by

participants was higher than the number of disadvantages.

These numbers make possible to state that SkypeTM

classes are seen as affording language learning since the

number of ‗disadvantage‘ is smaller than the ‗advantage‘

and ‗equal‘ options selected by participants. Table 3

shows the number of teachers‘ and students‘ answers

counted together, regarding each skill separately.

TABLE 3 NUMBER OF TEACHERS‘ AND STUDENTS‘ ANSWERS

COUNTED TOGETHER TO THE QUESTION ―ON SKYPETM

CLASSES, THE FOUR SKILLS (READING, WRITING, LISTENING AND SPEAKING) ARE IN ADVANTAGE (A), DISADVANTAGE

(D)OR ARE EQUAL(E), IF COMPARED TO FACE-TO-FACE CLASSES?‖.

Equal Advantage Disadvantage

Reading 7 1 2

Writing 5 1 4 Speaking 1 8 1

Listening 1 8 1

All in all, it is possible to conclude that teachers‘ and

students‘ perceptions portray a positive view of SkypeTM

classes, despite some negative aspects of the software use

in language classes. What can be concluded from the

analysis of their perceptions is that SkypeTM

is a software

that allows communication and not language learning per

se. The development of the four skills may, thus, rely

more on teachers and students and how teachers plan

their classes and how students monitor their learning

processes, as Blake (2005) had already claimed.

V. CONCLUSION

The present study investigated students‘ and teachers‘

perceptions on SkypeTM

language classes in relation to

f2f classes. It reported on similarities, differences,

advantages, and disadvantages regarding the two modes

of teaching and learning. Investigating characteristics

about how online differs from f2f classes may be

insightful for language teachers and students in order to

make informed decisions about how, when, and to what

purposes they could use these two modes of

communication.

This study contributes to the discussion of online

language classes, in relation to f2f modes of learning and

teaching. It examined perceptions‘ of students and

teachers, which gives a broader and more complete view

of the topic regarding such context of language learning

and teaching.

Teachers and learners consider that SkypeTM

language

classes create potential language learning opportunities.

Results pointed to more learning advantages than

disadvantages. Among the advantages, there are the

following: the necessity of paying more attention to the

online interaction; the need for making oneself

understandable through the voice interaction; lower

affective filter since it is an online interaction; further

development of speaking and listening skills, which are

considered hard to be developed; more comfort; and,





44

finally, access to learning from anywhere. In what

regards disadvantages, participants pointed out that

technical problems, the impossibility of lips and body

gestures reading, and lack of social contact may represent

obstacles.

The authors do recognize the limitations of this

investigation. The number of participants was small and

the results may be limited only to similar contexts: one-

to-one synchronous webconferencing voice call classes

(without video). However, this study can be seen as an

attempt in systematizing characteristics of this mode of

classes in relation to f2f ones.

There is a need for more investigation regarding

synchronous online learning. This mode of education has

been growing substantially and it allows more access for

people to learn a language (Hampel & Stickler, 2012;

Guo, 2013; Verjano, 2013). It is for many an easily

accessible environment for language practice, especially

for learners who do not live in target language-speaking

areas (Blake, 2000; Doughty & Long, 2003). In addition,

teachers may want to direct learners to use online

environments, such as SkypeTM

, to provide out-of-class

language learning opportunities.

In sum, the results of this study suggest that it may be

possible to maximize student language development

through SkypeTM

language classes, as long as teachers

and students are aware and committed to the learning and

teaching processes.





45

REFERENCES

Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication:

A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language

Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136.

Blake, R. (2005) Bimodal CMC: The glue of language

learning at a distance. CALICO, 22(3): 497–511.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied

Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed

Methodologies. UK: Oxford University Press.

Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal

psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign

language learning. Language Learning & Technology,

7(3), 50-80.

Guo, S. (2013). Applying web-conferencing in a

beginners‘ Chinese class. 30th ASCILITE Conference

2013 Proceedings. Macquire University, Sydney,

Australia.

Hampel, R. & Stickler, U. (2012). The use of

videoconferencing to support multimodal interaction in

an online classroom. ReCALL, Vol. 24 (2), 116-137.

Heins, B., Duensing, A., Stickler, U. and Batstone, C.

(2007). Spoken interaction in online and f2f language

tutorials. CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning),

20(3): 279–295.

Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations – and negotiated

interaction – in text and voice chat rooms. Language

Learning and Technology, 9(3): 79–98.

http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/jepson/default.html

Jewitt, C. (2004). Multimodality and New

Communication Technologies. In: Levine, P. and

Scollon, R. (eds.), Discourse and Technology:

multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, DC:

Georgetown University Press, 184–195.

Jones, L. C.; Murphy, C. A.; Holland, A. (2015). The

more things change, the more they stay the same, or do

they? Revisiting classroom interaction approaches and

their effects on quantity and characteristics of language

production. CALICO Journal, Vol 32, No 2 (2015).

Kenning, M. (2010). Differences that make the

difference: a study of functionalities in synchronous

CMC. ReCALL, 22(1): 3–19.

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction

with networked computers: Effects on quantity and

characteristics of language produced. The Modern

Language Journal, 79 (4), 457-476.

Kirtman, L. (2009). Online Versus In-Class Courses:

An Examination of Differences in Learning Outcomes.

Issues in Teacher Education, Volume 18, Number 2, Fall

2009, 103-116.

Lin, H. (2014). Establishing an Empirical Link

Between Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)

and SLA: A Meta-Analysis of the Research. Language

Learning and Technology, Volume 18, Number 3, 120-

147.

Ni, A. Y. (2013). Comparing the Effectiveness of

Classroom and Online Learning: Teaching Research

Methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, JPAE 19

(2),199–215.

Santos, D. S. (2012). Ensino/Aprendizagem da Língua

Inglesa com o auxílio da ferramenta Skype. (Unpublished

Undergraduate Dissertation) Universidade Federal da

Bahia. Conceição do Coité, Bahia.

Stickler, U., Batstone, C., Duensing, A., and Heins, B.

(2007). Distant Classmates: speech and silence in online

and telephone language tutorials. EURODL (European

Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning) 2007(II).

Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice

for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL

literature. ReCALL, 19(2): 105–120.

Verjano, A. C. (2013). Using Skype in a Primary Class:

a case study. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and

Learning Language and Literature. Vol. 6 (2), May-June,

2013, 49-68.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing f2f and electronic

discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO

Journal, 13(2), 7-26.

Xu, Y. (2005). Synchronous Computer-mediated

Communication and Second Language Acquisition -

Current Researches and Future Directions. Available at:

https://scholar.google.com.br/citations?view_op=view_ci

tation&hl=pt-

BR&user=DOQcmhIAAAAJ&citation_for_view=DOQc

mhIAAAAJ:t6usbXjVLHcC

AUTHORS

Nayara Nunes Salbego is a PhD student at the Federal

University of Santa Catarina. Her topic of investigation is

the use of technology for teaching and learning

languages. She has been teaching English as a Foreign

Language for 10 years. More recently, four years ago, she

started teaching on Skype.

Celso Henrique Soufen Tumolo is a Professor at the

Federal University of Santa Catarina. He holds a PhD in

English Language Teaching. His topic of investigation is

the use of technology for teaching and learning

languages.

http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/jepson/default.html

Skype Classes: Teachers and Students’ Perceptions on Synchronous Online Classes in Relation to...

Documents

Transcript of Skype Classes: Teachers and Students’ Perceptions on Synchronous Online Classes in Relation to...